With those
familiar with present methods, and not interested in their
perpetuation, this objection has no force whatever.

"4. That with constant political pressure unnecessary lines
would be built for political ends. This is also bare
assertion, although it is not impossible that such results
would follow; yet such has not been the case in the British
colonies where the governments have had control of
construction....

"5. That, with the amount of red tape that will be in use,
it will be impossible to secure the building of needed
lines. While such objection is inconsistent with the fourth,
it may have some force, but as the greater part of the
country is already provided with all the railways that will
be needed for a generation, it is not a very serious
objection even if it is as difficult as asserted to procure
the building of the new lines. It is not probable, however,
that the Government would refuse to build any line that
would clearly subserve public, convenience, the conduct of
the postal service negativing such a supposition....

"6. That lines built by the Government would cost much more
than if built by corporations. Possibly this would be true,
but they would be much better built and cost far less for
maintenance and betterments, and would represent no more
than actual cost; and such lines as the Kansas Midland,
costing but $10,200 per mile, would not, as now, be
capitalized at $53,024 per mile, nor would the president of
the Union Pacific (as does Sidney Dillon, in the _North
American Review_ for April) say that "a citizen, simply as
a citizen, commits an impertinence when he questions the
right of a corporation to capitalize its properties at any
sum whatever," as then there would be no Sidney Dillons who
would be presidents of corporations, pretending to own
railways built wholly from Government moneys and lands, and
who have never invested a dollar in the construction of a
property which they have now capitalized at the modest sum
of $106,000 per mile....

"7. That they are incapable of as progressive improvement as
are corporate-owned ones, and will not keep pace with the
progress of the nation in other respects; and in his _Forum_
article Mr. Acworth lays gr